On 29 Sep 2016, at 8:01, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Oddly, "owner name" is correct here. From RFC 1035, Section 3.2.1 which
>> describes the format of resource records:
>
> Compare that section to the nearly identical §4.1.3, which replaces this
> sentence:
>
> All RRs
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Oddly, "owner name" is correct here. From RFC 1035, Section 3.2.1 which
> describes the format of resource records:
Compare that section to the nearly identical §4.1.3, which replaces this
sentence:
All RRs have the same top level format shown below:
with:
The
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Paul Hoffman
wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2016, at 22:50, Robert Edmonds wrote:
>
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0400,
>>> Matt Larson wrote
>>> a message of 41 lines which said:
>>>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 01:50:05AM -0400,
Robert Edmonds wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
> The QNAME is a domain name, but is it an owner name? There is no owned
> record data in the question section (and the entries in the question
> section are not RRs).
You're
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0400,
> > Matt Larson wrote
> > a message of 41 lines which said:
> >
> > > I'd venture that more people familiar with the
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:26:38PM +, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:33:39PM +0100,
> Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote
> a message of 148 lines which said:
>
> > The RCODE applies to the RRSET pointed to by the last CNAME in answer
> > section (or
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0400,
> Matt Larson wrote
> a message of 41 lines which said:
>
> > I'd venture that more people familiar with the subject matter would
> > define QNAME as the name in the question section of a DNS
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:33:39PM +0100,
Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote
a message of 148 lines which said:
> The RCODE applies to the RRSET pointed to by the last CNAME in answer
> section (or the missing one).
This specific case was settled in RFC 6604 and I did not intend
Hi,
Strong objections to this answer, or can we call it done?
ISTM that the avoidance of ambiguity for implementers is the key thing here, so
I’m especially interested in hearing from anyone who’s not sure how to code
this as written.
Thanks all for a good discussion, and the suggestion that
Hello Paul,
On 26 Sep 2016, at 16:32, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 26 Sep 2016, at 0:33, Peter van Dijk wrote:
2308 does not “redefine” QNAME. It clarifies that the usage in
1034 4.3.2 is the definition we use in RFCs. 1035 4.1(.2) does not
conflict with this; the QNAME there is just the initial
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2016, at 0:33, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > 2308 does not “redefine” QNAME. It clarifies that the usage in 1034
> > 4.3.2 is the definition we use in RFCs. 1035 4.1(.2) does not conflict
> > with this; the QNAME there is just the initial QNAME.
>
> This seems like
On 26 Sep 2016, at 0:33, Peter van Dijk wrote:
2308 does not “redefine” QNAME. It clarifies that the usage in
1034 4.3.2 is the definition we use in RFCs. 1035 4.1(.2) does not
conflict with this; the QNAME there is just the initial QNAME.
This seems like a very limited view of RFC 1034.
> On Sep 23, 2016, at 4:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
> a message of 68 lines which said:
>
>> This issue was spotted by Peter van Dijk. It is about
>>
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 23 Sep 2016, at 10:22, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
>> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
>> a message of 68 lines which said:
>>
>> This
Hello,
On 23 Sep 2016, at 10:22, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 68 lines which said:
This issue was spotted by Peter van Dijk. It is about
draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05, recently approved by
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:57:26PM +,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote
a message of 73 lines which said:
> This would I believe cause problems if one then concludes that the
> subtree below the QNAME is absent.
For the record, I agree with Robert Edmonds: this case is well
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:22:32AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
> > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
> > a message of 68 lines which said:
> >
> > > This issue was spotted by Peter van Dijk. It is about
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:22:32AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
> a message of 68 lines which said:
>
> > This issue was spotted by Peter van Dijk. It is about
> >
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 68 lines which said:
> This issue was spotted by Peter van Dijk. It is about
> draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05, recently approved by IESG. The
> problem is the definition of "QNAME" when there
The definition of QNAME in RFC 2308 feels like it is only relevant when
discussing negative caching, not in general. All the other uses of the
1034/1035 definition of QNAME after 2308 feel consistent.
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
20 matches
Mail list logo